Appeal to Pity: A Case Study of the Argumentum Ad Misericordiam 1
نویسنده
چکیده
The appeal to pity, or argumentum ad misericordiam, has traditionally been classified by the logic textbooks as an informal fallacy. The particular case studied in this article is a description of a series of events in 1990-91 during the occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. A fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah had a pivotal effect on the U.S. decision to invade Kuwait by testifying to a senate committee (while crying) that Iraqi soldiers had pulled babies out of incubators in a hospital in Kuwait, and left them to die. Subsequent investigations revealed no basis for this claim, and that it was part of a public relations campaign, financed mainly by Kuwaitis, to get support for the invasion. The normative question studied in this case is whether or not the argument in it can correctly be evaluated as a fallacious appeal to pity. Part of the general issue is what is meant by the key word 'fallacious.'
منابع مشابه
Reasoned Use of Expertise in Argumentation
This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of arguments based on appeals to expertise. The intersection of two areas is explored: (i) the traditional argumentum ad verecundiam (literally, "appeal to modesty;" but characteristically the appeal to the authority of expert judgment) in informal logic, and (ii) the uses of expert systems in artificial intelligence. The article identifies a ...
متن کاملDiphtheria
Gentlemen,?I have occasionally heard a man, about to read a paper upon some subject, commence by expressing his sense of his unfitness for the task he has undertaken. I have, I must confess, looked upon this appeal, ad misericordiam, with much suspicion, believing the writer, did he not in his own heart believe himself particularly well-fitted for the work, would not have undertaken it. To-day,...
متن کاملApplying Labelled Deductive Systems and Multi-Agent Systems to Source-Based Argumentation
In this paper, it is shown how labelled deductive systems and multi-agent systems can be used to evaluate argumentation that is source-based and depends on a credibility function. When agents engage in argumentation in dialogues, each agent has a credibility function that can be adjusted upwards or downwards by certain types of arguments brought forward by the other agent in the dialogue. One t...
متن کاملPractical Reasoning and the Structure of Fear Appeal Arguments
There is considerable interest in fear appeal arguments in both the normative (logical) and the empirical (psychological) literature on argumentation. However, these two streams are, so far, relatively independent of each other. In this paper, an attempt is made to join them together, or at least to open up a canal between them.1 Fear appeal arguments are studied in logic under the category of ...
متن کاملBurden of Proof
This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem (ii) petitio principii and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialogue, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules ...
متن کامل